{"id":5593,"date":"2011-12-28T18:47:14","date_gmt":"2011-05-24T07:41:33","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-05-24T07:41:33","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5593","title":{"rendered":"CA5: Taint was purged for confession even after plainly illegal search of suitcase"},"content":{"rendered":"

After plainly illegal search of a suitcase, defendant was Mirandized at a different place and time and that purged the taint. United States v. Cantu<\/a>, 426 Fed. Appx. 253 (5th Cir. 2011) (unpublished):<\/p>\n

In this case, the full circumstances of the DEA interrogation served to attenuate any effect from the earlier misconduct. The Miranda warning made clear that Cantu was under no obligation to talk to the police, even if asked to confirm or deny information the police already knew. Further, the DEA interrogation was performed by federal officers, not the sheriff’s deputies who conducted the traffic stop, and neither Deputy Rios nor any other sheriff’s office personnel participated in the DEA interview. The DEA officers wore plain clothes rather than police uniforms, distinguishing them from the sheriff’s deputies. Although the DEA interview took place at the sheriff’s office, it was well removed in time and location from the traffic stop and the patrol car where the earlier misconduct took place.<\/p>\n

In short, the DEA interrogation was conducted in a \u201cdifferent place[] … with different people in a different atmosphere\u201d than the illegal search. By distancing the DEA interview from the earlier misconduct, these circumstances created an \u201catmosphere … more conducive to an act of free will.\u201d That willful act\u2014Cantu’s knowing and voluntary decision to give a written confession\u2014purged any remaining taint from the earlier illegality, weighing heavily in favor of admitting the confession.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

County jail inmate survived a motion for summary judgment on a strip search claim where he was strip searched after being denied a contact visit and was under constant surveillance. Jordan v. Cicchi<\/a>, 428 Fed. Appx. 195 (3d Cir. 2011) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n

The district court\u2019s injunction against defendant continually attempting to relitigate his 1999 search in 2255\u2019s was affirmed. It was \u201ccarefully tailored\u201d and did not prohibit any future litigation for other claims. Shivers v. United States<\/a>, 427 Fed. Appx. 697 (11th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5593","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5593","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5593"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5593\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5593"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5593"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5593"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}